United States v. Maleek James , 667 F. App'x 684 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-30220
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00427-MJP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MALEEK JAMES, a.k.a. Dr. Brian
Wojack, a.k.a. Brian Womack,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Maleek James appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
has authority to modify a sentence under section 3582(c)(2), see United States v.
Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.
James contends that he is entitled to a sentence reduction under Amendment
782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The district court correctly concluded that
James is ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentence is already below
the minimum of the amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A)
(“[T]he court shall not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement to a term that is less than the
minimum of the amended guideline range.”). Because the district court lacked
authority to reduce James’s sentence, it had no cause to consider the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) factors. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 826-27 (2010).
Contrary to James’s contention, the district court was not free to disregard section
1B1.10. See United States v. Fox, 631 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2011)
Insofar as James challenges the leadership enhancement imposed, this claim
is not cognizable. See Dillon, 560 U.S. at 831 (section 3582(c)(2) does not permit
a plenary resentencing proceeding).
James’s motion to expedite is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-30220